Red Dragon (2002)

Highly Overrated But Still Good

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Yep. Headline says it all. It looks good and has a cast of top notch actors. The opening sequence was mildly interesting but the rest is just one long flatline. The main reason for this is Brett Ratner. He has no idea how to build and deliver suspense properly and his sense of pacing is the main reason for the flatline effect. He also relies too much on stock cinematography. See "Manhunter" instead.

for the science to propose a better story than "Hannibal". for the more convincing performances. for Ralph Fiennes who does a perfect portrait of serial killer, mix of different cultural influences , explored in wise manner. a film more subtle than "Hannibal" and almost a return to the spirit of "The Silence of Lambs". explanation - it is not a puzzle , with too many pieces and ambiguous rules, it is not a demonstration and the script gives to Anthony Hopkins the chance to do more than a clone of his character. and Edward Norton is the real right choice for the alternative to Clarice Sterling.

After The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal it was logical to do remake of Manhunter to complete trilogy with Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal in all parts. Enough time has passed since I watched the original movie not to be able to remember all details, but it seems to me that Red Dragon is almost exact copy of Manhunter. Production is better and no one is better Hannibal than Hopkins, but the rest is pretty much the same. Cast in Manhunter may be better though. For real fans of this trilogy and/or Hopkins this is mandatory, but for all the rest who already saw Manhunter this movie is unnecessary. During whole first watching I had a feeling like I'm watching it again, and as it is thriller and I knew what's next all of the time it was pretty much boring to watch. Don't get me wrong, movie is good, and those who did not see Manhunter will surely enjoy it, but it is pretty much pointless to watch them both.

This film is a sequel to "Silence of the Lambs" and has a very similar story: with a new serial killer around, the FBI will again request the help of the dangerous and manipulative Hannibal Lecter, the most famous cannibal ever. Directed by Brett Ratner and written by Ted Tally, this film has a cast headed by Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton and Ralph Fiennes.It's a good movie, but there is no comparison with the film that gave rise to it. The script is good, but it misses on two fundamental points: the first is to immediately tell the killer's identity, albeit discretely, removing some interest to the narrative; the other is to tell a story that is almost identical to "Silence of the Lambs." Both films have very similar plots, which gives the audience a sense that this film is more of the same. One difference, however, is the level of violence: this movie, even though it contains scenes of great action, has so many shocking scenes as their predecessors. Nevertheless, it is a movie with quality and entertains. The actors were up to expectations, particularly Ralph Fiennes, who plays the killer and managed to give the character a real aura of madness. Anthony Hopkins, again in cannibal paper was able to be perfectly equal to the expected. The special visual and sound effects, although discrete, are competent. The soundtrack seemed to discreet but good.